Talk:Shooting of Daniel Shaver/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2017
change under the section "iNCIDENT" the line that says "notably distant from his waist" to "towards his waist" not a matter of ethics but the video shows him going towards his waist probably to pull up his shorts 184.18.140.97 (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. Can't do it; this is a really sensitive article and making edits based on what people think the video depicts is not in compliance with our policy regarding this kind of original research. Almost any change here, let alone one this contentious, has to be supported by a really strong source.  City O f  Silver  15:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This was changed from that version originally. I restored it to the text supported by the sources rather than different people's interpretations of the video. Natureium (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The move back to Death of Daniel Shaver
why did you move the page back to the phrasing? I'm not sure your argument that is the standard en.wiki phrasing holds. A quick look at Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States shows that there are 63 pages that start with and only 11 that start with.

Further, is the phrasing favoured by our sources. Per WP:CRITERIA, is also a more precise description of the event. AdA&D 16:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's standard to assume good faith with edits like these, so I believe he's trying to make the language appear more neutral. You could always start a debate over it to prevent an edit war, I'm sure more people would agree to the phrasing over  if such a debate were to take place. 109.77.22.155 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems that we're debating it already. I think is both neutral and more specific. As already mentioned, we have several articles with that style of title as examples. I propose a move back.MartinezMD (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have started an RM below, please participate there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2017
CHANGE title from "Death of Daniel Shaver" to "Killing of Daniel Shaver" or "Killing of Daniel Shaver by Mesa Police"

Since he was killed, rather than merely died, it seems appropriate to title this article as the "Killing of Daniel Shaver". Murder, assassination, and execution are normatively laden terms; "killing" is literal. Guyana332 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See the policy on biographies of Living Persons (which does apply to the recently-deceased) and the policy on article titles for why. Briefly, however, the proposed titles are not neutral point-of-view suggestions and are advocacy for a position.  You may always request this at the correct venuerequested moves.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that RM is the right place for this, but I don't see how killing of Daniel Shaver is an 'advocacy for a position'. As far as I can tell, no one denies Daniel Shaver was killed, nor for that matter that he was killed by Mesa Police. The question is only whether the killing was justified which neither title deals with. As the op said, murder, assassination and execution would be problematic. Note that this doesn't mean I'm saying they are the best title, there are various issues that need to be considered like which comes across as the both neutral and accurate and supported by RS, as we've both said that should be decided in a RM. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have started an RM below, please participate there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently Sgt Langley was giving the direction, not Brailsford
Apparently Sgt Langley was giving the direction, not Brailsford

Source: http://photographyisnotacrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Transcript-of-Daniel-Shaver-shooting.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatyzac (talk • contribs) 01:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This page has been misguiding people all over the world. Please modify accordingly asap.--Huangjs (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Update
This article needs to be updated as there are ongoing developments. The body cam video has been released and the officer has been charged with second degree murder.Bill (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This is about Questioning "Acceptable" Police procedures. The verdict to acquit Officer Brailsford was crafted around "Acceptable" Police procedures. When questioning LEO about "Acceptable" Police procedures very little information is made readily available. As we witnessed, Daniel Shaver a pest-control worker and resident of Granbury, Texas was surrounded by overwhelming fire-power resembling a Special Weapons And Tactics Team (SWATT) style Police purpose. That Police purpose was to investigate a report of a firearm seen through the window of Daniel Shaver's room. While no crime was witnessed and firearms are not against the Law. Acting on Exigent Circumstances the concern for public safety was the task taken by the Mesa AZ. Police Department. Sgt. Charles Langley was the senior LEO in-charge of the scene, Officer Philip Brailsford is the shooter. From the longer unedited 19:37 body cam video at-least five (5) Officer team controlled the scene. sequence of events;

03:36 Sgt. Langley makes first verbal commands to occupants of room 502. 04:39 Snickering is heard 05:30 The idea to obtain a key-card and call the room from the front desk is approved by Sgt Langley. No sound or acknowledgements while waiting 1 min 54 seconds. 07:52 Phone can be heard ringing 08:22 Again phone can be heard ringing 09:00 Sgt. Langley makes acknowledgement on his radio 09:25 Sgt Langley makes a second acknowledgement on his radio 09:45 Monique Portillo with  Daniel Shaver exit room 502 and are ordered three (3) times to stop then get on the ground by Sgt Langley. Both Portillo and Shaver comply without hesitation. For 2 min 25 seconds Sgt Langley berates and questions them, claiming they apparently are failures to comprehend simple instructions. Sgt Langley demands they acknowledge and understand he intends to shoot them for failing to follow his instructions. 12:10 Portillo crawls toward Sgt Langley's team. 12:45 Portillo is cleared as a threat after minimal confusion. Now with Daniel Shaver laying on the floor of the hallway all weapons are trained on him at point blank range. Sgt. Langley gives him crawling instruction. Shaver is berated with every mistake he makes and is warned he will be shot for another mistake. 14:03 While crying begging for his life Shaver uses his right hand to pull up his shorts and is shot 5 times by Officer Brailsford while crawling on the floor less than 4 feet from where Police are positioned to frisk him.

11 min 27 seconds from first verbal order to dead man in the hall at the feet of a five man Police investigation team. 11:27 is hardly a stand-off situation. With a Veteran Sargent in-charge of the scene, Five heavily armed, trained Police Officers in body-armor. Discerned with one suspect crawling in-front of them justify the need to shoot the man dead like a Rabbit Dog. Justification; failure to comply with Police instructions. Officer Brailsford acquitted of Murder and Manslaughter because he followed "Acceptable" Police procedures. Daniel Shaver had no warrant for his arrest. The investigating Officers had no search warrant so they acted on Exigent Circumstances. The yield of the investigation was one pellet air rifle used by Shaver in performance of his extermination work to remove birds from inside of stores.

Once again this situation compels the Questioning of "Acceptable" Police procedures. The Constitution is the document that defines Americans and separates us from other forms of tyranny. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states that Cruel and Unusual punishments [shall NOT be] inflicted. Shooting anyone to death for "Failure to Follow Instructions" is certainly of the most "Cruel and Unusual" infliction of punishment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEOxyr1AQyY&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:508E:ED00:4C20:7FE2:9615:AF25 (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Update
Body cam footage shows the execution Quiteconfuzzed0604 (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It was not an execution. Our article says
 * "'Brailsford yelled at Shaver that if Shaver did anything whatsoever that deviated from his instructions he would shoot him and he probably wouldn’t survive. Shaver then reached his right hand back towards his waistband, at which point Brailsford can be heard yelling 'Don't-' before immediately opening fire with his AR-15 rifle, striking Shaver 5 times and killing him almost instantly. Shaver was unarmed.'"


 * The act of reaching with his hand toward his waistband (a common place for carriage of a concealed weapon) is very likely what Shaver did to provoke Brailsford to shoot him. The situation was likely seen by the jury as justifiable homicide in which Brailsford was in reasonable fear for his life or that of others present in the hallway.


 * This was not a case where a judge and jury had leisure to sentence someone to death after deliberations and review of evidence, so it fails the criteria set forth in our article Capital punishment for an execution.


 * It was a case where, while the correctness of Brailsford's actions might be questioned, a jury found him not guilty of any criminal offense with which he was charged. Former officer Brailsford was entitled to the presumption of innocence while awaiting trial and up until a jury declared its verdict in his case.


 * Now, Shaver's family will doubtless seek wrongful death damages against the city government of Mesa AZ. That, too, is due process, and a finding that Brailsford acted wrongly in shooting Shaver in a civil trial has a much more lenient standard of evidence than a criminal trial. But until we have WP:RS sources attesting to that, our article says as much as it can say. loupgarous (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

OP is right; we should call it an execution, just as the reliable sources do. the analysis above on the usage of "execution" in the other article on Capital Punishment is irrelevant. Here are sources showing all known sources refer to it as an "execution-style" killing or simply as an execution. No sources can be found just saying he was "shot" as our current article does, embarrassingly.

Here are the sources: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/665760/cop-executed-man-not-guilty-murder-Daniel-Shaver-Philip-Brailsford-Mesa-Police-video http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11956512 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cop-filmed-executing-man-hands-11659721 https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/2017-12-09-us-policeman-acquitted-of-killing-unarmed-man-who-begged-for-his-life/ http://www.newsweek.com/police-release-graphic-video-officer-involved-shooting-742241 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/a-police-killing-without-a-hint-of-racism/546983/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/12/08/ex-officer-found-not-guilty-shooting-death-daniel-shaver/935524001/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniel-shaver-shooting-ex-arizona-police-officer-not-guilty-murder-n827641 http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mesa-arizona-police-shooting-20171208-story.html

All of these sources use a description of the shooting as an execution.Restore the good version 2600:1017:B404:BD76:F4F9:B13E:4787:AD16 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of those sources call it a “shooting.” Some of the articles quote an attorney for Shaver’s family calling it an “execution.” It would therefore not be appropriate to write that the event was an execution in Wikipedia’s voice. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The first three of those sources appear in in [[WP:PUS] under "News Media" as examples of tabloid journalism. In this instance, their reliability cannot be assumed.  The other articles are examples of WP:SENSATION due to the race between them to go to press, and the one-sided nature of the reporting. Where the term "execution" is used, we're not

In light of the video that was released, parts of this article should be edited as they are shown to be incorrect.

"Upon arrival, police gave Shaver and his acquaintances detailed orders for several minutes, with frequent admonitions that failing to comply with them would get them shot. Eventually, Shaver was ordered to crawl on the floor towards them. While complying with their request, Shaver, who was intoxicated and could be heard sobbing, begging officers, "Please don't shoot," brought his hands toward his waist. Brailsford yelled at Shaver that if Shaver did anything whatsoever that deviated from his instructions he would shoot him and he probably wouldn’t survive. The officer told Shaver to put his hands up in the air and not to bring them down for any reason. A few seconds later, the officer ordered Shaver to crawl towards him, to which Shaver complied. Shaver then reached his right hand back towards his waistband, at which point Brailsford can be heard yelling "Don't!" before opening fire with his AR-15 rifle, striking Shaver 5 times and killing him almost instantly. Shaver was unarmed."

The video shows Shaver was non compliant several times, specifically in regards to keeping has hands visible and in the air or in front of him. Shaver puts his hands behind his back after being told to keep them in the air before being instructed to crawl forward. That act caused the officer speaking to instruct him to put his hands above his head again and not drop them for any reason or he would be shot. Shaver was then instructed to crawl forward on his knees while keeping his hands in the air above his head and keeping his legs crossed (as the video shows Shaver's female companion doing). Shaver immediately lowered his hands and attempted to crawl forward on all fours, again not complying with the orders of the police. Then the final non-compliance of this nature when he reaches to his side/back with his right hand (presumably to pull up his pants but which looks like he was reaching for something from the POV of the officer who fired).

Not trying to make any commentary on whether the tactics and procedures used by the police were correct in this situation, whether the instructions were confusing or not, or whether the police involved had used sound judgement, but Shaver was clearly non-compliant with their instructions involving where they wanted him to keep his hands at 3 points in the encounter. The third one which resulted in the shooting. The article should be edited to clarify that Shaver was non-compliant in light of the video that was released. The article gives the impression that Shaver was being compliant when he was in fact not being compliant. I don't feel comfortable making the changes myself as I don't really edit wiki articles and don't feel like getting involved in any edit war but I believe this change should be made. 72.180.65.103 (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Since I guess sources are required and you can't just go off of what the video shows, here is an article talking about the trial where the three acts of non-compliance are mentioned by the officer who was giving the orders (Langley) https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2017/11/14/former-mesa-police-sergeant-backs-decision-mitch-brailsford-fatal-shooting/864693001/  72.180.65.103 (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * edited to remove to offset and remove the link as a reference 72.180.65.103 (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that loupgarous is right here in that it should not be referred to as an execution unless a court of law judges that it was. Due to the highly charged (publicly, politically, and emotionally) nature of this case right now even citing reliable sources to back up the statement that it was an execution is not enough. It is defiantly a type of homicide or murder (use of the term differs from country to country) but what type can only be decided by a court of law.  What can be said in the article, and it might be worth including a section covering how the case was covered in the media, is that this or that source referred to the act as an execution or (with enough good reliable references) that it was commonly refereed to as an execution by the media or general population.  Or that the nature of the killing was controversial with detractors of the police officer's actions referring to it as an execution.  This is all a long way for me to say that Wikipedia likely not the place to make a judgement call on this, only the justice system is but the article can still refer to the disputed use of the term.  However, as  has stated, a new civil trial case will likely be opened and civil court has a lower standard certainty than a criminal trial.  There is a much higher chance (in my estimation) that the civil trail will judge it an execution than the criminal one.--Discott (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Why are people implying that "non-compliance" is something that justifies shooting someone? That's hardly the criteria for justifiable self-defense. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not implying that at all. Non-compliance is not a justification for shooting someone, but the instructions the police give (such as keeping the hands visible and away from the body) are intended to decrease the possibility that the person can either do something that can harm an officer or someone else present(and would justifiably result in a self-defense shooting) and also decrease the chance of someone doing something harmless that could still be misinterpreted as dangerous, as happened in this case.  Daniel Shaver was not directly shot for failing to comply with instructions. He was shot because the officer who shot him misinterpreted Shaver's actions as reaching for a weapon.  The instructions the officer (who was not the officer who fired) was giving were meant to decrease the chances of that occurring.


 * Again, I am not trying to make a commentary on whether the actions and judgement of the police involved were correct or not. But the article incorrectly states that Daniel Shaver was complying with police instructions when the video shows that he failed to comply with instructions to keep his hands visible and away from his body 3 times. I think that Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible and when something in an article is found to be factually incorrect it should be corrected. 72.180.65.103 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Edits for Grammar 72.180.65.103 (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how any of that is relevant, since none of it constitutes justifiable self-defense. And those "instructions" were not only self-contradictory and confusing, they were outrageously criminal. Anyone other than an agent of the state would go to prison for that crime alone. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that it is not relevant. When the wiki article states multiple times that Shaver was compliant with police instructions facts showing he was not-compliant are relevant to making sure the article is accurate.  Also whether he was compliant with police instructions or not is relevant to the events leading up to the shooting and should be mentioned in the article.  Whether that constitutes justifiable self-defence (although that wouldn't be the accurate term, I think the more accurate term would be justifiable homicide) is not currently something that can be established in the wiki article.  The only thing that can be noted regarding that is what the courts have decided so far.


 * The instructions were also not self-contradictory. I think the reason that some people think that the instructions were contradictory is the final instruction was to crawl forward, and most people assume crawling on hands and knees when they hear the word crawling.  But crawling also refers to just crawling on your knees, which is what this instruction was referring to based on the context of all the previous instructions.  It was earlier stated to Shaver's female companion that she should crawl forward on her knees and they were both given multiple instructions to keep your hands above your head and not lower them for any reason.  It was even further clarified by stating to Shaver that even if he lost his balance he should not use his hands to break his fall, he should just let himself fall while keeping his hands raised and outstretched.  Whether they were confusing or not?  I don't think they were particularly confusing but a lot of people who have seen the video and news stories on it have stated they were confusing.  So apparently some people do find them confusing.  The term outrageously criminal is just emotive language.  The laws as interpreted by courts and juries determine whether something is criminal or not.


 * I would re-iterate that I think the factual errors in the article regarding whether Shaver was compliant or not should be corrected, but I don't think the Wiki talk page is the correct forum for arguing the morality or correctness of the actions. It is an important conversation that people should have, and it's a conversation I don't mind having, but this is not the place for it. 72.180.65.103 (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Edit for correcting an offset. 72.180.65.103 (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 2600:1017:B404:BD76:F4F9:B13E:4787:AD16 said:
 * "'OP is right; we should call it an execution, just as the reliable sources do. the analysis above on the usage of 'execution' in the other article on Capital Punishment is irrelevant. Here are sources showing all known sources refer to it as an 'execution-style' killing or simply as an execution. No sources can be found just saying he was 'shot' as our current article does, embarrassingly."


 * Here are the sources:
 * https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/665760/cop-executed-man-not-guilty-murder-Daniel-Shaver-Philip-Brailsford-Mesa-Police-video
 * http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11956512
 * http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cop-filmed-executing-man-hands-11659721
 * https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/2017-12-09-us-policeman-acquitted-of-killing-unarmed-man-who-begged-for-his-life/
 * http://www.newsweek.com/police-release-graphic-video-officer-involved-shooting-742241
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/a-police-killing-without-a-hint-of-racism/546983/
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/12/08/ex-officer-found-not-guilty-shooting-death-daniel-shaver/935524001/
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniel-shaver-shooting-ex-arizona-police-officer-not-guilty-murder-n827641
 * http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mesa-arizona-police-shooting-20171208-story.html


 * All of these sources use a description of the shooting as an execution.Restore the good version 2600:1017:B404:BD76:F4F9:B13E:4787:AD16 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)"


 * The first three of those sources appear in WP:PUS under "News Media" as examples of tabloid journalism. In this instance, their reliability cannot be assumed, the guidance in WP:SENSATION counsels against reporting in tabloids or even in normally reliable sources when a story has a short press cycle - as the acquittal of Mr. Brailsford was.
 * The other articles are, despite being considered usually reliable sources, examples of WP:SENSATION due to the race between them to go to press (which is specifically mentioned as reducing reliability of reports in stories such as this one). Where the term "execution" is used, it is as quotations from the Shaver family's attorney, and that's how we ought to present them, too.
 * Finally, the article from The Atlantic was not straight news reporting, but news analysis. We can use that article if we are very careful (under the guidance in WP:BIASED to inline cite the source AND state ("according to Conor Friedersdorf, writing in The Atlantic....") that his comments are, when not straightforward accounts of the events, his own analysis of them.  Even in this case, the author quoted the Shaver family attorney as saying Shaver was "executed". If the reporters on this case are careful to quote the Shaver family attorney as calling Shaver's death an "execution", we should be just as careful. Calling the death an execution in wikivoice is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT - we would be inappropriately taking one side of an unsettled public controversy.  We can and should wait for reporting on any future civil trial to say anything further. loupgarous (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Rename page to "Execution of Daniel Shaver"

 * Support, per WP: COMMONNAME2600:1017:B404:BD76:F4F9:B13E:4787:AD16 (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While this was a rather extreme case of excessive force, it wasn't an execution. Shaver wasn't trailed, sentenced to death or intentionally captured with the intent to kill. His death was caused by a police officer overreacting. 109.77.22.155 (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A non-starter per WP:NPOV, even if you could make the COMMONNAME case, which you can't. Please participate in the new RM below. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * STRONGLY OPPOSE. per WP:SENSATION, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. In every source cited so far in WP:RS sources, the word "executed" was used by the Shaver family attorney in speaking to reporters.  In these sources, the reporters were themselves careful to quote the attorney as saying this, they didn't say it themselves as a fact.  If we were to change the title of our article to make a point for the attorney who represents a bereaved family, doubtless in future litigation in civil courts, we're abusing wikivoice to further one point of view on an unresolved controversy - "Were Officer Brailsford's actions reasonable, or was Daniel Shaver's death wrongful?".
 * At this point, what we have to go by, even in usually reliable sources (and three tabloids which are specifically named in WP:Potentially unreliable sources) is short news cycle reporting we're cautioned against relying on in WP:SENSATION. Using quotes from the Shaver family attorney to rename our article "Execution of Daniel Shaver" lends wikivoice to an attorney retained by one side of an unresolved controversy. loupgarous (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017
Bigswingface (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. HindWikiConnect 14:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: Sergeant Charles Langley
The involvement of Sergeant Charles Langley needs to be addressed. The issued commands which lead to the death of Shaver were coming from since retired Sergeant Charles Langley. The Wikipedia entry incorrectly states that these commands were issued by Brailsford.

Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/?utm_term=.7640b2e9b9ba https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/8/16752914/police-arizona-philip-brailsford-daniel-shaver https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2017/10/26/jury-sees-body-cam-video-ex-mesa-officer-fatally-shooting-unarmed-man/803368001/

Worth mentioning is also that the man doing the shouting now receives a pension from his time at the Arizona police department. Sources: http://apps.mesaaz.gov/meetingarchive/ArchiveDocuments/Documents/%7BE5A4D1F8-7DD6-46F2-918D-D5F8DFB698C6%7D_0.pdf https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2017/11/14/former-mesa-police-sergeant-backs-decision-mitch-brailsford-fatal-shooting/864693001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blopblopblapblip (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - While Brailsford actually shor Shaver, Charles Langley was the one yelling in the video.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 23:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Profane Language?
Wasn't it a laser engraved dust cover that said "You're fucked." "Etching his rifle with profanity" makes him sound like a rebellious third grader scratching his desk. 27 Aug 2017 (Anonz)
 * Post to facilitate archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2017

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus favors the move, and there is a reasonable argument for consistency with other articles on the subject of persons killed by shooting. bd2412 T 02:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Death of Daniel Shaver → Shooting of Daniel Shaver – The article was moved today by User:Beyond My Ken with the edit summary "standard en.[w]iki usage". Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States contradicts that rationale with "Shooting of..." outnumbering "Death of..." by 6-to-1. I think if you looked only at major cases in the past 3 or 4 years, the ratio would be even higher; see Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Shooting of Oscar Grant, Shooting of Philando Castile, Shooting of Laquan McDonald, Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, Shooting of Walter Scott, Shooting of Tamir Rice, Shooting of Ezell Ford, Shooting of Samuel DuBose. "Killing of..." has also been discussed on this page, and "Shooting of..." outnumbers that by 30-to-1 in the above-linked category. Per WP:CONSISTENCY, the article should be moved back to "Shooting of...". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENCY: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Common sense says the greater the similarity, the more applicable the precedents. U.S. police shootings have far more in common with this article than do death articles in general. The only thing this has in common with the Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is death of a person. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – per nom.  05:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per:
 * Death of JonBenét Ramsey
 * Death of Osama bin Laden
 * Death of Caylee Anthony
 * Death of Michael Jackson
 * Death of Benito Mussolini
 * Death of Freddie Gray
 * Death of Adolf Hitler
 * Death of Diana, Princess of Wales
 * Death of Muammar Gaddafi
 * Death of Marilyn Monroe
 * Death of Eric Garner
 * Death of Edgar Allan Poe
 * Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
 * Death of Joseph Smith
 * Death of Subhas Chandra Bose
 * Death of Dale Earnhardt
 * Death of Ayrton Senna
 * Death of Tim Piazza
 * Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed
 * Death of Azaria Chamberlain
 * Death of Marvin Gaye
 * Death of Manadel al-Jamadi
 * Death of Alan Kurdi
 * Death of Baha Mousa
 * Death of Kenneth Salvesen
 * Death of Abdul Wali
 * Death of Sandra Bland
 * Death of Victoria Snelgrove
 * Death of Elisa Lam
 * Clearly, "Death of..." is an absolutely standard article title, used for both historical and contemporary events, and for deaths both natural and unnatural. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway.
 * You already cited CONSISTENCY above, but it's not a particularly good argument, in my opinion, since right now the article title is consistent with all the articles I just cited. Why is consistency with your set of articles more important then consistency with my set of articles?In any case, why is it that we have a special category of titles for "Shooting of...", when "shooting" is a completely ambiguous term? Someone who is shot is not necessarily dead, and what is significant about the Daniel Shaver incident is not that he was shot, per se, but that he is  dead .  Hence "Death of..." is the more appropriate title, and "Shooting of..." should be reserved for non-fatal shooting incidents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm hearing that you don't buy the CONSISTENCY argument. I still do. I often oppose inter-article consistency arguments as fostering stagnation and stifling evolution, but it's about consistency where there is no real need for consistency, which I see as counter-productive overthink. I view article titles differentlyand so does our titling policy, apparently. Agree to disagree, unless somebody can get a community consensus on how to title this specific class of articles, followed by a bunch of moves to that convention. Why is consistency with your set of articles more important then consistency with my set of articles? I think I answered that question in my previous comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A problem with your examples is that many of the articles you listed, such as the Death of Adolf Hitler, the Death of Michael Jackson and the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales weren't shootings. Hitler commit suicide, Jackson had an overdose and Diana died in a car crash. For pages about shootings it's common to start them with instead of . 109.77.22.155 (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename to Murder of Daniel Shaver (there is Murder of John Lennon, btw). If murder won't pass, rename to Killing of Daniel Shaver. Shooting is not close enough a description to what happened. - Mardus /talk 09:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think "murder" can be used, unless someone is found guilty of such crime, which this article indicates that it's not the case.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I support changing the name to shooting or killing. It could even be renamed to execution as that is what it was. Oranjelo100 (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * N O T E - Please either Support or Oppose the proposed move. This is an RM, not an open discussion about "what should the title of this article be?" When this RM is concluded, anyone can start another one with a different proposed title. Also note the instruction in the template message at the top of this section: "Please base arguments on article title policy". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per my arguments here, but I'll quickly summarize: most fatal police shootings on Wikipedia that I could find use the phrasing over .  is the phrasing that is heavily favoured by our sources. It is also less ambiguous than . I would be okay with either the phrasing  or  (which I think would be a fair compromise with those who say that just  is too ambiguous).  AdA&D  15:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we have "shooting of" articles where the shooting wasn´t fatal? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes (example), but many (most?) Wikipedia articles about non-fatal shootings have different titles. It still seems odd for a title to purposely omit such an important fact, especially since most shootings are non-fatal. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In support of the move, it's written above, " It is also less ambiguous than death of". Well, there's nothing ambiguous about the fact that this kid is dead, and leaving it as "shooting" makes it ambiguous (Did he survive or not).  I've already voted to oppose, but I do understand that "death of" doesn't do enough.  So once this is done, how about moving to "Shooting death of . . . "?  Un  sch  ool  02:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONSISTENCY, part of Wikipedia article titling policy. Per Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, there is not a single precedent for "Shooting death of...". Not one. Get a community consensus for a mass move to "Shooting death of..." and I will happily support it for all future U.S. police shooting articles. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How is shooting less ambiguous? "Death of" says that he died. "Shooting of" says he was shot, with many possible outcomes. Is the article about the fact that he was shot by police or the fact that he died after he was shot by police? Natureium (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We have far, far more "Death of" articles that have nothing in common with this one (many aren't even homicides, let alone shootings, let alone shootings by U.S police) than "Shooting of" articles about non-fatal shootings. One (1) example of the latter was linked above. That's how it's less ambiguous. As has been stated elsewhere in this discussion, the fatal nature is implied to a very large degree. This reasoning doesn't just make sense, it is supported by the local consensuses at the 60 other "Shooting of" articles about fatal U.S. police shootings. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  Oppose - We know that Shaver is deceased, and the current title is just fine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Referring to it as the "Shooting of" is both accurate, un-emotive and explanatory. --Discott (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - same as above. Accurate, consistent with other shootings, unemotional.MartinezMD (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as "Death of Daniel Shaver" – accurate and unemotional. Natureium (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support "Killing of..." or "Fatal Shooting of..." – Accurate, neutral, and nobody disputes it. He was killed, not merely shot, and it's not like he died of natural causes. Why use a purposely vague title? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I like (and support) your suggestion, "Fatal Shooting of . . . " Un  sch  ool  02:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support moving to 'shooting or if possible doing what the poster above me is proposing. Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support moving to Fatal Shooting of, Murder of or at the very least Shooting of in agreement with Blue Eyes Cryin Arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subsidium logicae (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - "Shooting" is precise. Death has subcats like suicide, disease, accidental shooting, murder, etc. Be precise -- and the right amount of precision. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to "Shooting", because it's inadequate, incomplete. Upon completion of this discussion, I would support moving to Shooting Death of Daniel Shaver.  Un  sch  ool  02:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to "shooting", because it's not sufficiently specific. One can be shot and not die. Daniel Shaver died.  If, in the future, civil litigation goes forward from the facts in the case of his death, the fact he was shot won't be disputed, but whether his death was wrongful or not. WP:No deadline says we can (and probably should) wait for more developments reported in WP:RS regarding what else to call this death. loupgarous (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think most people assume that if there is a shooting incident article, then it is about a fatal shooting. See a lot of examples of that. None of them lived. It is like an article called 'Poisoning of Jane Doe'. We can assume she didn't recover. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States lists 60 articles where editors decided "Shooting of..." was preferable to any alternative, far more than any other construct (as I said in the opener, six times as many as "Death of..."). It isn't like the title wasn't thoroughly discussed and debated at those other articles, I was involved in many of them myself and I can assure you that there are no new issues being raised here. And there is no reason why one U.S. police shooting article needs a different title from the majority of U.S. police shooting articles, so there is little point in re-debating this over and over again, at each U.S. police shooting article, with the outcome largely a random matter of who shows up for the discussion. This is the whole point of WP:CONSISTENCY, which is part of Wikipedia article titling policy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are 235 articles in that category and 60, by your count, start with "Shooting of". That's a minority. And why are we bolding numbers? Natureium (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that should be plurality. Far more than any alternative, and six times as many as the nearest competitor. I bolded for emphasis, which is allowed in small amounts. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support moving to "Shooting of" or "Fatal Shooting of" as several others have suggested. It's factual, neutral and consistent with other similar articles. 109.77.22.155 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Shooting or Killing. Matches what the sources use.  SnowFire (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Inspecting Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States (the link given in the proposal at the top), it seems like such a rock solid reason for this to be moved to "Shooting". Those were fatal and the term "Shooting" just so, so conventional. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's so compelling that I wonder (1) how many participants have even read the opening argument, and (2) of those who have, how many understood that 6-to-1 is a ratio, not a count. It would be a lot less compelling if it were 6 articles to 1, rather than 60 to 10. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It is overwhelmingly compelling. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Shooting or Killing - Per SnowFire. I think the User:Mandruss's argument was pretty good. It's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but in this case it seems valid. NickCT (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, but it's a WP:CONSISTENCY argument, which applies only to article titles. In other words, titling policy wants us to look at the other stuff. I wouldn't be doing so absent that policy. BTW, the policy supports "Killing of" even less than it supports "Death of". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Well, not to get too philosophical, but I think WP:CONSISTENCY is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. NickCT (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Proposed title is far more recognisable, and in all other ways at least as good as current title. The notable thing is not that he died, but that he was shot by police. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - If Daniel Shaver had died in a car accident or of a heart attack or in war, there would be no article. The fact that his death was by shooting at the hands of the police is why the article exists and that is why the article needs to be renamed. 79.65.126.84 (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support since this was a police shooting as compared to, say, a shooting as part of a military action. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support "Fatal Shooting..." because it shows that he died but also shows he was shot. Paranerd023 23:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and WP:CONSISTENCY with similar articles (i.e. Shooting of Michael Brown). The reason why this subject is notable is because he was shot to death, and the article should reflect that. "Death" indicates that the subject was known for something else besides his death, when he is only notable for being shot by a police officer.  CookieMonster755   𝚨-𝛀    20:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The role of Charles Langley in the death of Daniel Shaver
In the Incident section, the following is stated...

"Brailsford yelled at Shaver that if Shaver did anything that deviated from his instructions he would shoot him and he probably wouldn't survive. The officer told Shaver to put his hands up in the air and not to bring them down for any reason. A few seconds later, the officer ordered Shaver to crawl towards him, to which Shaver complied. Shaver then reached his right hand back towards his waistband, at which point Brailsford can be heard yelling "Don't!" while simultaneously opening fire [...]"

This is not correct. The officer heard giving orders in the body cam footage is Sergeant Charles Langley, who is to the left of Officer Brailsford in the video. The article listed as a source of this information is not relevant to large portions of the account given in this section, as the body cam footage was not released at that time. Charles Langley is not mentioned in this article, though his confusing orders played a major part in the death of Daniel Shaver. This article should be expanded to include the actions of Charles Langley, who was an equal participant in the escalation of events that led up to the shooting, and the primary source of confusion that made it seemingly impossible for Shaver to comply. Altoidyoda (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources for the role of Langley can be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/?utm_term=.7640b2e9b9ba https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/8/16752914/police-arizona-philip-brailsford-daniel-shaver https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2017/10/26/jury-sees-body-cam-video-ex-mesa-officer-fatally-shooting-unarmed-man/803368001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.195.198 (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by in this edit.  AdA&D  16:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have additional Information on Langley, he left the country and I'd suggest to add the following sentence (the part with "adrenelized" is not in the source, but I think it highlights Langleys massive role in the shooting). - Sergeant Charles Langley, who verbally escalated the situation and thus adrenalized Brailsford, has since retired from the force and moved to the Philippines. Source: UsatodayLukie.80 (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you'd need to be very careful in your phrasing with anything suggesting guilt or liability without using reliable sources - see WP:BLP. MartinezMD (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

January 2019 cleanup
The article was a confusing mess after some apparent edit-warring, e.g. abruptly mentioning "the rifle" and "Portillo" without any prior explanation of who or what they are. I have tried to clean it up to make tolerable sense. --Muzilon (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC) I can't speak for other articles, but cf. Shooting of Trayvon Martin and other similar articles. As with anything else, we will never have full consistency absent a guideline covering this, and imo it's a fool's errand to worry too much about such consistency. And looking to precedent for guidance means that suboptimal choices get locked in and propagated even when they haven't been thoroughly considered and vetted by the community. That's why I don't do that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the issue with Shaver's birthdate being included? Cf. Shooting of Philando Castile, and other similar articles. Muzilon (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said in the edit summary, this is not a bio of Shaver. We would also omit other bio details such as birthplace, parents' names, etc, if they were available. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information the question I ask is not "Why should we omit this information?" but rather "Why should we include this information?". For the purposes of this article  for reader understanding of the article subject, a shooting incident  his age at death is enough information.
 * OK, I don't have strong feelings about it. I have taken the liberty of inserting Shaver's age (26) into that sentence, however. Muzilon (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I support that; I thought it was already in the prose somewhere, but I guess I was remembering seeing it in the infobox. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Philip Brailsford Rehired by City of Mesa; Immediately Receives Permanent Medical Retirement
Brailsford, 28, was rehired in late 2018, and then immediately given medical retirement for post-traumatic stress disorder. Brailsford will receive approximately $2,500 a month, with at least a 2% annual pension increase, for the remainder of his life. This is notable, as many are protesting what is perceived as a grossly inappropriate action by the City of Mesa, considering the circumstances of this shooting, and in the context of police brutality in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:a6c:d155:c3cb:a1e0:270b (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

address
can someone find and add philip brailsford's address? this information would be socially improtant in the context of the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.244.136.88 (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Such drollery. See WP:BLPPRIVACY. Muzilon (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are individuals who would like to see Lon Horiuchi improved by inclusion of an address. I don't think either would meet Wikipedia standards of ethics.47.137.185.72 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Shaver's race
Articles of black person's shot by police mention their race. Should this article state that Shaver was white? 47.137.185.72 (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It would seem that reliable sources have mentioned Shaver's ethnicity only to say that – unlike similar police shootings of black men – there was no suggestion of racial profiling in this case because Shaver and Brailsford were both white. If you can incorporate those reactions into the article in an NPOV manner, go ahead. Muzilon (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Exceptionally Uninformative, Biased article.
Overall: The article fails to include the most important facts. Mr. Shaver was required to attempt to follow a long series of extremely difficult to carry out orders. He begged the cops not to shoot him. These are the most important facts, yet the article fails to mention them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:C305:2B20:A555:4146:36AF:E1C2 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Brandish: Definition: wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement. I have seen no proof or even allegation that anyone was waving or flourishing an air rifle as a threat or in anger or excitement. If you have proof of "brandishing", please post a reference. In this case someone simply observed a gun, apparently a silhouette of a gun. There has been no allegation that I've seen that having a long gun was even illegal.

Here's the relevant portion of the 911 call: "Do we know what he's pointing the gun at?" the dispatcher says. The clerk responds, "We're not sure." https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2016/03/29/mesa-police-911-call-weve-got-some-scared-people-brailsford-shaver/82399768/

Per current reference [3]: A couple in a hotel hot tub told staff they saw a silhouette of a person with a gun pointed toward a nearby highway.
 * Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes. I have changed the wording in the lead from "brandished" to the more colorless "pointed", although a simple Google search turns up several reliable news sources that stated police were responding to a report of a firearm being "brandished" at the hotel window. I agree that the article could probably be improved with details about the complicated police orders and Shaver's distress. Some further background is that police suspicions had been increased because they'd already stood outside the door of Shaver's hotel room and yelled for the occupants to exit the room, which was seemingly ignored (Portillo later testified she and Shaver did not hear the yells). The police then had to telephone Shaver's room to order the occupants to come outside. Muzilon (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Subtitle Appears to Contradict the Body of this Article
When viewing this article in the Wikipedia mobile app, a subtitle appears directly beneath the title, as follows: Title: "Shooting of Daniel Shaver" Subtitle: "2016 police murder of a white man in Mesa, Arizona"

Examination of the body of the article reveals that the police officer who shot and killed Daniel Shaver was charged, tried, and acquitted of second-degree murder. No other murder charge was ever levied. Therefore, the subtitle is in contradiction to the content. Either the subtitle is incorrect or the body of the article is missing a key piece of information that would justify the claim that Shaver was murdered, rather than shot and killed, by police. Sethmanwaring (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thank you. That was added just four days ago and wouldn't have survived much longer. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath
Just for the records and maybe historic interest. It appears Brailsford was fired and then rehired two years later so he could receive a 31,000 USD/year pension for PTSD from the incident. After murder acquittal, Mesa ex-cop Philip Brailsford made a pension deal 188.110.244.69 (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Philip Brailsford Age at Time of Shooting
I believe the article used to say Brailsford was 24 or 25 at the time of the shooting. But it now says he is 26. The article says he graduated from high school in 2009. The shooting occured in January 2016. Which means if he was 26 at the time of the shooting, he would have graduated high school at 19 or 20, depending on what month his birthday is in. This is uncommon but not unheard of. Brailsford's profile on Casting360.com says that he is 31 now. The shooting was 6 years ago which would make him 25 at the time. I am aware that Casting360 is not considered a reliable source as per WP:RS, but it is my understanding that Brailsford himself put his age on his profile and I have a hard time believing he would get his own age wrong. I have yet to see any reliable sources indicating that he was 26 at the time of the shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.148.115 (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Killing not Shooting of Daniel Shaver
My understanding of Wikipedia standard procedures is that the word "killing" is used in these situations, not "shooting". There's currently a discussion in the Article on Breona Taylor's accidental killing to make the same change, so I thought I'd initiate the same discussion here.68.206.249.124 (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose until the current RfC on this very question is resolved. At this point I would mention that Shooting of Philando Castile and Shooting of Amadou Diallo would seem to go against the suggestion that it's currently "Wikipedia standard procedure" to call an article "Killing of..." when a police officer is acquitted of murder/manslaughter after shooting a suspect. And for cases of acquittal involving non-police see Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori. Muzilon (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - the article title is clearly in violation of WP:DEATHS, as are (as Muzilon mentioned) several other Wikipedia article titles about civilians killed by police officers.  Combefere  ❯❯❯  Talk  22:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:DEATHS. Armadillo  pteryx  00:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose: I understand the new flow-chart at WP:DEATHS was added after the closure of the pertinent RfC I mentioned in my earlier comment posted 29 Oct 2020. I am updating/revising my previous "vote" accordingly. The flow-chart states that WP:COMMONNAME should still apply in the first instance, and per COMMONNAME, Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. On that basis, a Google News search turns up ~179 hits for "Shooting of Daniel Shaver" compared to only ~66 hits for "Killing of Daniel Shaver". Muzilon (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: it might also be better if someone proposes this as a formal WP:MOVEREQ. Muzilon (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with with Muzilon. On Google, I get 220 and 76 for shooting/killing. On bing.com, I get 77,900 for shooting and 62,500 for killing . --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)